Caulfield Park

....our park our future

Historic Caulfield Park is Under Threat

Ignoring the outcomes of public meetings, major submissions and resident paid design options, the Glen Eira council has undertaken a cynical and manipulative process to approve construction of a $5million pavilion in Caulfield Park despite over 92% of residents disapproving of the plan.

When 48 of 50 speakers at a council organised public meeting articulate sound reasons why the councils OPTION A pavilion should not proceed you would expect some action. The council needs to explain how a contrived process over the past six months has resulted in not one door knob being changed and the building has not been moved one inch from the original draft so totally rejected by the meeting.

Caulfield Park is one of only a handful of significant municipal parks in Melbourne. It needs immediate protection from the councils inappropriate and and poorly conceived development.

The councils OPTION A proposed building ;

• takes over 1.5acres of green parkland
  

• includes an additional 37 car parks
  

• a new two way ring road through the park
  

• the loss of 28 mature trees
  

• a 120 seat function room, drive through dropoff area, and large reception foyer
  

• two large commercial kitchens
  

Negative Impact of the Councils Option Plan A

• The Function Room for 120 people requires the development of a second level
  

• The footprint of over 1.5acres of currently green park
  

• Excessive and unnecessary height, bulk and associated visual impact
  

• The massive car-parking expansion and car-parking management
  

• An arbitrary location in the middle of existing green space, there are good alternatives
  

• The severance impacts - the building together with the existing infrastructure cut the park in half
  

• (Tennis Courts, Bowling Club, Croquet Club and Council Depot) physically and visually sever the Park
  

• Extensive environmental and amenity impacts
  

• Lighting, Noise, safety, security, water and energy
  

• Consequential impact on Inkerman Road
  

• The loss of six city house blocks of open space for the building and associated car parks cannot be justified
  

Positive Aspects of Option A

• Need for improved and appropriate sporting facilities
  

• The need for an integrated Landscape Plan for the whole of Caulfield Park.
  

Glen Eira councils park consultant advised that ;

..the new Car Parks are to be considered as part of the parks open space.. 

The council OPTION A differs in every way from the facilities planned and included in 2000 Registered Master Plan

The council has also put forward plans to convert the existing Conservatory into a commercial coffee shop on the Crown Land within the Park, with the addition of yet another car park.

Our invitation

We invite the council to contact us and provide any other diagrammes of the OPTION A pavilion as it would appear in the photo above..

We will post on this site any comments and diagrammes provided by the council on this issue.

_______________________________________

When will the trees come down...?

The construction of a ring road through the park and the additional car parks directly related to the Function Room will mean the loss of 28 mature trees.

.

We believe the chainsaws will move in over the Christmas break when less people are around and most likely during the night.

When do you think the trees will be cut down?

Point at your Park to see our Council Option A

A Freudian S'lip..??

Councilor Lipschutz stated: “..  It would have been relatively easy for us to cynically call a public meeting, display further options and then choose to ignore what residents say and simply decide what we want to do”.

Glen Eira Council Minutes August14th 2007

Council needs to update Cr Lipshutz..

On October 2nd 2007 Cr Lipshutz said "...the council did not receive the group's design. A group of people were very committed to Option D, but they didn't submit it to council," Leader Newspaper.

Unfortunately for Cr Lipshutz a receipt was issued that confirms the council received the submission on August 31st at 4.10pm which is prior to the councils deadline. A copy of the submission was also emailed to individual councilors.

He has repeatedly refused to explain why he falsly claimed that no submission had been received.

On August 14th Cr Michael Lipshutz stated that the residents submission including the residents design Option D had not been presented to the Council.

He said.. "They have had a month to come up with an alternate design based on the brief that they accepted ... But what did they present?  Nothing"

He also stated that FOCP had agreed with the design brief outlining the councils proposed pavilion.....

"..exactly what part of too big, too expensive, poorly designed and in the wrong place didn't Cr Lipshutz understand. Dozens of letters and the councils March Public Meeting rejected every aspect of the brief. "

The brief was never agreed to or accepted by residents.

Cr Lipshutz attempt to preempt the residents submission was buried in a self indulgent personal statement at council. He knew that the residents design Option D was being prepared and would form part of a detailed submission to the council.

The period for comment on the Councils revised options B and  C did not close until August 31st.

The public process in August 2007 was to gather opinions on the issues regarding the proposed pavilion and was never to have included the previously rejected Option A.

It should not be incumbent on residents to engage architects to re-design Pavilions when the council were given this task by their own Public Meeting in March.

The residents OPTION D is an architect prepared design that;

• conforms with the requirements of the original brief,
  

• complies with all relevant building codes,
  

• satisfies all of the requirements of each sporting club and user group,
  

• contains a community room for 80 people,
  

• has separate conforming umpire and first aid rooms,
  

• with disabled and 24 hour public toilets.
  

More attention to detail in the design of the residents OPTION D pavilion means it is;

• only 48meters, single storey, and costs $3.75million including all landscaping and road works.
  

• Unlike the Councils OPTION A the expensive flood mitigation works are not required for residents OPTION D as it is located slightly to the west (20mtrs) off the Melbourne Water flood overlay.
  

• Councils OPTION A is 68meters, two storey, $5million  and was totally rejected by their own public meeting in March.
  

The Glen Eira councilors have allowed themselves to be misled yet again by a councilor apparently hell bent on pursuing his personal agenda.

By adopting the minutes of the August 14th meeting the council has acquiesced to his statements and is now complicit in his abuse of the privileges afforded him when making personal statements in Council meetings.